• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Building vs. Enclosure Distinction?

P

Paul Bixel

REGISTERED
Joined
Feb 14, 2018
Messages
5
Location
USA
Hi Folks,

I am an electrical engineer, no so familiar with building codes. The subject of building code comes up in my world when designing outdoor electrical equipment as to what constitutes a "building" subject to codes. For example at every intersection with a stoplight I can see a stainless steel enclosure that encloses the electrical controls for that intersection. Is that enclosure subject to building codes? Is it a building and if not why not?

Thanks,
Paul
 
Paul Bixel said:
Hi Folks,

I am an electrical engineer, no so familiar with building codes. The subject of building code comes up in my world when designing outdoor electrical equipment as to what constitutes a "building" subject to codes. For example at every intersection with a stoplight I can see a stainless steel enclosure that encloses the electrical controls for that intersection. Is that enclosure subject to building codes? Is it a building and if not why not?

Thanks,
Paul
Click to expand...


Normally not a Building

Size for one/ piece of equipment
 
Thanks for these responses. But in 312.1 of this code I see Group U covering structures not meant to be occupancies but still having code requirements. For example a 'tank' or a 'fence' is a structure that is covered by this code and it is not meant to be shelter or occupancy.

I need some text to point and AHJ to that says "Only 'buildings' are in the scope of this code". Instead I have the Group U classification seeming to say exactly the opposite that all structures must be classified into an Occupancy class.
 
You look at the examples given for a “U”

I am thinking yours does not fall under them.



If you were doing something the size of a cell tower site Building, than I would call it a Building.


312.1General.
Buildings and structures of an accessory character and miscellaneous structures not classified in any specific occupancy shall be constructed, equipped and maintained to conform to the requirements of this code commensurate with the fire and life hazard incidental to their occupancy. Group U shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

  • Agricultural buildings

  • Aircraft hangars, accessory to a one- or two-family residence (see Section 412.4)

  • Barns

  • Carports

  • Communication equipment structures with a gross floor area of less than 1,500 square feet (139 m2)

  • Fences more than 6 feet (1829 mm) in height

  • Grain silos, accessory to a residential occupancy



  • Livestock shelters

  • Private garages

  • Retaining walls

  • Sheds

  • Stables

  • Tanks

  • Towers
 
Paul, A similar thing would be a deck. Not a building, but a structure. When we say "supports an occupancy" this generally means that someone is in the building or using the structure to do something (living, working, etc.). If you are designing an enclosure and someone will need to enter it to service equipment, it would likely be subject to the building code (telephone switchers, electrical vaults). If someone is just reaching into the cabinet to maintain it (like those controlling traffic lights), then they are not regulated by the building code.
 
105.2Work exempt from permit.
Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following:

  1. Building:
    1. 1.One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided that the floor area is not greater than 120 square feet (11 m2).
 
If the enclosure is for a single piece of equipment it probably wouldn't be considered a building. If it is large enough for more than one piece of equipment and has space for somebody to enter it and work on the equipment it's likely to be considered a building. IBC 105 exempts buildings under 120 SF from needing a permit.
 
I am thinking of an equipment enclosure that is not intended to be entered. It is intended that you remove the covers and reach in to service it and then replace the cover or close the door when done.

But people here do not like risk of any kind that they will run afoul of an AHJ. So wording like "shall include, but not be limited to, the following:" does not help me at all. It just throws doubt in the minds of people like myself who are not experts and at the mercy of arbitrary interpretations.

105.2 does help if the enclosure is small enough but for larger pieces then what? We have large pieces of equipment. They are larger than 120 sq ft. but the enclosure does not permit an adult to get inside. You are intended to reach in to service and then replace the covers or close the access doors.

I do appreciate the comments.
 
I would not want to consider the equipment as a building because I would have no idea what to enforce. Building codes are designed primarily to ensure occupants can get out of building/structures in an emergency. Yes, they do other things too, but on a fundamental level, this is the function. If a person physically cannot get in there to begin with, I want no part of that liability.
 
58513ECB-649A-4EB8-ACC9-B2B6580171EF.jpeg





Paul Bixel said:
I am thinking of an equipment enclosure that is not intended to be entered. It is intended that you remove the covers and reach in to service it and then replace the cover or close the door when done.

But people here do not like risk of any kind that they will run afoul of an AHJ. So wording like "shall include, but not be limited to, the following:" does not help me at all. It just throws doubt in the minds of people like myself who are not experts and at the mercy of arbitrary interpretations.

105.2 does help if the enclosure is small enough but for larger pieces then what? We have large pieces of equipment. They are larger than 120 sq ft. but the enclosure does not permit an adult to get inside. You are intended to reach in to service and then replace the covers or close the access doors.

I do appreciate the comments.
Click to expand...


It is a piece of equipment

Like an above ground transformer box or:::

The picture above


Normally does not fall under the building code.
 
What is pictured is an excellent example of a structure in my world. You could also imagine a row of 10 of these all lined up. Maybe even taller or deeper boxes.

"Normally does not fall under the building code" is perfectly understandable and reasonable to me. But the lawyers involved would want chapter and verse of why such a structure does not fall under the building code when other structures such as fences do.

When there is money involved nobody wants a surprise. That's the only explanation I can give for such a question as this. I hope you can forgive me for posing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cda
Paul Bixel said:
What is pictured is an excellent example of a structure in my world. You could also imagine a row of 10 of these all lined up. Maybe even taller or deeper boxes.

"Normally does not fall under the building code" is perfectly understandable and reasonable to me. But the lawyers involved would want chapter and verse of why such a structure does not fall under the building code when other structures such as fences do.

When there is money involved nobody wants a surprise. That's the only explanation I can give for such a question as this. I hope you can forgive me for posing it.
Click to expand...



No problem the strange questions are fun, and I ask them also
 
[A] 101.3 Intent.
The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

Unless your equipment supports a Risk Category III or IV occupancy there would be no building permits because you are not building or constructing onsite. A building permit may be required for the foundation/pad to ensure it will with stand seismic and wind loads for the Risk Category III or IV so they remain operational after a natural disaster. Think cell tower equipment, emergency generators, electrical equipment supporting police and fire communications at towers, etc
 
mtlogcabin,

Unfortunately for me our equipment is sometimes used for Category III purposes such "Power-generating stations, water treatment facilities for potable water, waste water treatment facilities and other public utility facilities not included in Risk Category IV." as discussed here
https://www2.iccsafe.org/cs/committeeArea/pdf_file/BU_12_113_12.pdf

Also the photo shared above is of a traffic light controller. That would seem to meet the definition of a Risk Cat III structure according to this link since failure would cause a substantial hazard to human life.

So are we saying then that the risk category is what requires compliance with the building code?
 
F
Paul Bixel said:
mtlogcabin,

Unfortunately for me our equipment is sometimes used for Category III purposes such "Power-generating stations, water treatment facilities for potable water, waste water treatment facilities and other public utility facilities not included in Risk Category IV." as discussed here
https://www2.iccsafe.org/cs/committeeArea/pdf_file/BU_12_113_12.pdf

Also the photo shared above is of a traffic light controller. That would seem to meet the definition of a Risk Cat III structure according to this link since failure would cause a substantial hazard to human life.

So are we saying then that the risk category is what requires compliance with the building code?
Click to expand...


NO

If what is being looked at does not fall under the “ scope” of IBC.

Than none of IBC applies
 
Paul Bixel said:
Also the photo shared above is of a traffic light controller. That would seem to meet the definition of a Risk Cat III structure according to this link since failure would cause a substantial hazard to human life.
Click to expand...
ASCE 7-10 Section 13.6.4 thru 13.6.6 is probably where you will find your answer for how to design your equipment enclosures that will meet code. The foundation/pad, anchorage and fastener design requirements are also within Chapter 13 of ASCE 7-10.
The traffic light controller is not be a Risk Cat III structure failure is not a substantial hazard to human life.
 
Paul Bixel said:
What is pictured is an excellent example of a structure in my world. You could also imagine a row of 10 of these all lined up. Maybe even taller or deeper boxes.

"Normally does not fall under the building code" is perfectly understandable and reasonable to me. But the lawyers involved would want chapter and verse of why such a structure does not fall under the building code when other structures such as fences do.

When there is money involved nobody wants a surprise. That's the only explanation I can give for such a question as this. I hope you can forgive me for posing it.
Click to expand...
There is probably not a more receptive group to ask this to.
 
I would see the only thing it would need to meet is set backs but with being said utility don't have the same requirements as a building. As the AHJ where i am I would never even see plans for this, it would be the highway or street department that would handle things like that with no over site of the building department or fire inspections.
 
Virginia exempt from permits (on private property, the code is not applicable to federal and state ownership and control of the equipment and property);

1) “Detached prefabricated buildings housing the equipment of a publicly regulated utility service, provided the floor area does not exceed 150 sf.

2) Fences of any height unless required for pedestrian safety as provided for by Section 3306, or used for the barrier for a swimming pool.

So if the “enclosure” is without a roof it would be exempt from a permit.

IBC
Definition.

[A] BUILDING. Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.

[A] STRUCTURE. That which is built or constructed.

Group U. commentary;

“This definition is intentionally broad so as to include within its scope, and therefore the scope of the code (see Section 101.2), everything that is built as an improvement to real property. See also the definitions for “Building” and “Area, building” for the difference between a building and structure.

Structures classified as Group U, such as fences, equipment, foundations and retaining walls, are somewhat outside the primary scope of the code (i.e., means of egress, fire resistance). They are not usually considered to be habitable or occupiable. Nevertheless, many code provisions do apply and need to be enforced (e.g., structural design and material performance). Structures housing accessory equipment that is part of a utility or communications system are often classified as Group U occupancies when there is no intent that these structures be occupied except for servicing and maintaining the equipment within the structure. A pumphouse for a water or sewage system or an equipment building at the base of a telecommunications tower are examples of such buildings.”

2018 Group U
Communication equipment structures with a gross floor area of less than 1,500 sf.
 
Last edited:
It's all about size
A electrical box enclosure my not be covered by the building code
But Large switch gear room/bldg will be

Some cities regulate through their municipal codes the location of traffic boxes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top